Notes for Expert Review


All the manuscripts of Clean Coal Technology are reviewed online. After receiving the invitation for review in the E-mail from us, the reviewer is expected to review the manuscript carefully and comment it with respect to the topic, research method, credibility of the research results, textual representation, presentation of charts, content of abstract, completeness of references, and whether the article has violated academic ethics, etc., and provide specific review comments as much as possible.

  1. The reviewer should review the manuscript in a serious, careful and meticulous manner with a highly responsible attitude towards the Editorial Board, the Author, and the readers, and decide to pass it or not based on the quality of the manuscript. For contributions made by the authors who have relations with the reviewer (we implements double-blind review system, but it is also possible to know who the author is based on the content of the article), the reviewer should propose to avoid reviewing such articles. The reviewer should encourage academic contention and not to make things difficult for the authors deliberately because of different academic views, and should make an objective academic evaluation of each article.

  2. The reviewer should clearly express his/her own opinions on the reviewed manuscripts, and fill out the review form carefully to write down the overall evaluation opinions and the specific review opinions on each part of the manuscript. The specific review comments should be made as comprehensive as possible, so as to prevent repeated rejections for revisions or abandonment after revision.

  3. The name of the reviewer of each manuscript shall be kept confidential to the author. The reviewer should neither show the manuscripts being reviewed to others nor discuss them with unrelated people. If he/she needs to seek the opinions of others in special circumstances, write the questions down on the review sheet and ask others to kept it confidential under same terms. Never tell the reviewer and his/her review comments to the author or any third party other than the editor. The Editorial Board is responsible for collecting and summarizing the opinions of all parties and directly contacting the author.

  4. It is required that the review comments shall be sent back to the Editorial Board within one month for prompt processing. If the topic of the manuscript submitted for review is beyond the profession of the reviewer, which results in difficulties in reviewing the manuscript, please return it to the Editorial Board in time, and we hope the reviewer recommend the appropriate reviewer to us for further review. If the review cannot be completed on time due to busy work, please return the submitted manuscript in time and inform the Editorial Board to propose the termination of review period. Reviewers of overdue manuscripts will receive a speed-up notice from us.

  5. The reviewer will be paid as set forth regardless of whether the manuscript is published or not.

    Thank the review experts for their constant support to us!